- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:57:01 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> What are the specific techniques here? > > record the reading level of content at each check. If the level increases, a > tool may record a suspicion that the relevant checkpoint is not met. If the > author is asked explicitly, it may record that the author claims the > checkpoint is met. For abetter implementation, only do this after providing > some repair attempt. > > record author's satisfaction with text equivalents. Don't prompt the author > to confirm these again if there is a recorded answer and the content has not > changed. > > chaals I think the real technique is annotating or having the tool record that the author checked something and it should be remembered - using EARL as a language to record it. I'd call it "Annotating with EARL". In the example I would like to suggest examples that are more priority 1 and not controversial [more usability and less technical accessibility] ones like reading level. For example, using alt="" - null string for spacer and redundant images should be recorded as "valid" by the author. Another example would be tables used for layout and real data tables. The layout tables could be recorded as "layout" and not checked anymore for TH's, captions, or headers=. The tool could also record that the "layout table" was "linearized" and verified that it "looked" OK to the author. In other words all the P1's that require or could benefit from some human judgement annotations. Regards, Phill Jenkins, (512) 838-4517 IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center 11501 Burnet Rd, Austin TX 78758 http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 14:57:23 UTC